All this talk of equipping certain Infantry Battalios with 120mm Mortars is a validation of the argument I had made a while back along similar lines including having certain units retaining the current 81mm weapon. This will also affect the future usage of the L118 1205mm Light Gun as it will most likely only find a use supporting those units who retain the latter Mortar. It will be interesting to see how far we go down the 120mm route and whether we also adopt the latest evolutions of the 120mm ammunition. The fact that the adoption of 120mm Mortars is an option moving forward will produce a huge capability upgrade for the units that adopt it.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 10 Jan 2023, 15:21
by Tempest414
Party true it now looks like the Armoured brigades will get NEMO 120mm plus have 155mm and M270A2 where the Light Mech and Light Infantry will get ether towed or SP 120mm plus L118 light gun and Exactor
Why do you think LBCT will get Exactor? They are currently operated by 26th Regiment RA, the same one that is currently operating all M270s in the British Army. But its future is not clear. some statement/article it is suggested that it will be replaced by new guided munition for MLRS, while some are mentioning possible modernisation or something like that. Personally, I think it will be replaced as soon as MLRS could provide same/similar capability.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 23 Jan 2023, 22:03
by sol
Elbit Crossbow turreted mortar systems. Presentation material is showing it mounted on Boxer
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 23 Jan 2023, 22:08
by RunningStrong
What's the benefits of turreted mortars? Direct fire?
Can't you autoload a mortar on a turntable?
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 23 Jan 2023, 23:12
by sol
RunningStrong wrote: ↑23 Jan 2023, 22:08
What's the benefits of turreted mortars? Direct fire?
US Army is also moving from open-roofed mortars to turreted ones.
But so far seems like NEMO was only presented to US but not adopted. In article on army.mil advantages of the breach loaded mortar are listed as
A breech-loaded mortar system has several advantages compared to traditional, muzzle-loaded systems. “There's a crew safety factor, where by the system being breech-loaded, the crew doesn't need to be near the muzzle of the weapon, where all the blast-over pressure from the firing event occurs,” Terreault said.
Another safety factor related to breech-loading is that loading the weapon occurs from within the vehicle. In contrast, with muzzle-loading, the muzzle needs to be outside the vehicle or outside of protection. That’s because there can't be anything between the mortar barrel and the open sky when it fires its ammunition.
Breech-loading also offered more flexibility in firing that is related to how the system is automated, maneuvered and controlled. “Once you're breech-loaded, you no longer have to shoot directly up into the sky,” Terreault said. “You can shoot at lower angles, because you no longer are relying on the rounds that drop down the barrel in order to have enough kinetic energy to strike a firing pin, initiate the primer, and then come back out the muzzle.”
With a combination of breech-loading and an electronic firing mechanism, the weapon can be positioned in a near-horizontal angle and engage targets directly, similar to a tank cannon. “Now, that's not an optimal mission role for a mortar system, but it does provide the system a certain level of self-defense that it didn't have previously, which helps make the platform overall more survivable,” Terreault said.
“If we weren't able to fire below 45 degrees, we'd be very limited in the amount of firing engagements we could use in order to achieve multi-round, simultaneous impact events,” Terreault added. “And typically, we consider anything above 45 degrees as indirect fire and below 45 degrees as direct fire.”
I mean nothing revolutionary is mentioned there, I think everything is already mentioned on this forum. Also not sure how good are open roofed mortars when firing on move or if they could do it, but turreted for sure can do.
I mean if there is enough money, why not use turreted mortar if they could provide direct fire, even tho I doubt they will be often be used for that. What would be drawbacks? Main one I can find is RoF.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 24 Jan 2023, 12:30
by RunningStrong
sol wrote: ↑23 Jan 2023, 23:12
I mean if there is enough money, why not use turreted mortar if they could provide direct fire, even tho I doubt they will be often be used for that. What would be drawbacks? Main one I can find is RoF.
Weight, complexity, higher physical profile, less discrete?
Seems an odd trade off to me, but I'm not entirely sure what the expected use for these heavier mortars are.
sol wrote: ↑23 Jan 2023, 23:12
I mean if there is enough money, why not use turreted mortar if they could provide direct fire, even tho I doubt they will be often be used for that. What would be drawbacks? Main one I can find is RoF.
Weight, complexity, higher physical profile, less discrete?
Seems an odd trade off to me, but I'm not entirely sure what the expected use for these heavier mortars are.
Small crew, under cover. Same reasons you argued for a howitzer system that could be fired with the crew under cover:
Ron5 wrote: ↑15 Jan 2023, 15:39
SIGMA (pictured) has a 2 person crew and the gun is fully automated.
I know, but the commented I quoted was suggesting a CAESAR 6x6 with manually loaded gun offered a more deployable solution. I agree, it does, but the crew requirements, survivability and lethality of such a transportable vehicle is greatly reduced against the SIGMA-like solutions.
sol wrote: ↑23 Jan 2023, 23:12
I mean if there is enough money, why not use turreted mortar if they could provide direct fire, even tho I doubt they will be often be used for that. What would be drawbacks? Main one I can find is RoF.
Weight, complexity, higher physical profile, less discrete?
Seems an odd trade off to me, but I'm not entirely sure what the expected use for these heavier mortars are.
Small crew, under cover. Same reasons you argued for a howitzer system that could be fired with the crew under cover:
Read back. I understand automation and personnel undercover benefits. What I don't understand is why that needs to be through the use of a turret and not a turntable solution. Anything constructive to add? Can't an arm pick-up a munition and place it in the tube?
sol wrote: ↑23 Jan 2023, 23:12
I mean if there is enough money, why not use turreted mortar if they could provide direct fire, even tho I doubt they will be often be used for that. What would be drawbacks? Main one I can find is RoF.
Weight, complexity, higher physical profile, less discrete?
Seems an odd trade off to me, but I'm not entirely sure what the expected use for these heavier mortars are.
Small crew, under cover. Same reasons you argued for a howitzer system that could be fired with the crew under cover:
Read back. I understand automation and personnel undercover benefits. What I don't understand is why that needs to be through the use of a turret and not a turntable solution. Anything constructive to add? Can't an arm pick-up a munition and place it in the tube?
Let me interrupt your frenetic back pedal.
There are turntable systems with breech loaded mortars and there are turret systems with muzzle loaded mortars so your use of "turrets" as a synonym for "breech loaded" is demonstrably wrong.
As for the arguments for breech loading vs muzzle load, have at it. I don't care.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 24 Jan 2023, 19:26
by RunningStrong
Ron5 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2023, 16:05
Let me interrupt your frenetic back pedal.
There are turntable systems with breech loaded mortars and there are turret systems with muzzle loaded mortars so your use of "turrets" as a synonym for "breech loaded" is demonstrably wrong.
As for the arguments for breech loading vs muzzle load, have at it. I don't care.
I've not once used turrets as a synonym for breech loaded. I don't care how it's loaded. I was only talking about turrets versus turntables.
Ron5 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2023, 16:05
Let me interrupt your frenetic back pedal.
There are turntable systems with breech loaded mortars and there are turret systems with muzzle loaded mortars so your use of "turrets" as a synonym for "breech loaded" is demonstrably wrong.
As for the arguments for breech loading vs muzzle load, have at it. I don't care.
I've not once used turrets as a synonym for breech loaded. I don't care how it's loaded. I was only talking about turrets versus turntables.
Back in your box, little man.
Then count me among the many here that haven't a clue what you're arguing about. Here's the US Army's requirement which looks pretty decent to me.
I'm not aware of any turntable solution that can meet this. Most, if not all, of them are open to the sky/NBC so fail rather badly.
Ron5 wrote: ↑24 Jan 2023, 16:05
Let me interrupt your frenetic back pedal.
There are turntable systems with breech loaded mortars and there are turret systems with muzzle loaded mortars so your use of "turrets" as a synonym for "breech loaded" is demonstrably wrong.
As for the arguments for breech loading vs muzzle load, have at it. I don't care.
I've not once used turrets as a synonym for breech loaded. I don't care how it's loaded. I was only talking about turrets versus turntables.
Back in your box, little man.
Then count me among the many here that haven't a clue what you're arguing about. Here's the US Army's requirement which looks pretty decent to me.
I'm not aware of any turntable solution that can meet this. Most, if not all, of them are open to the sky/NBC so fail rather badly.
Ronnie, I'm pretty sure I'm typing English, I'm pretty certain your American is a similar language. What are you struggling with here?
The text you've provided is based on the assumption that turntables are manually loaded (i.e. crew exposed to blast), whilst turrets are either autoloaded or breech-loaded under armour. The same text also states indirect fire, so at a high-level the requirement is not for an additional direct-fire capability.
So I'll break it down to a single simple sentence.
Why can't a turntable mortar have an autoloader?
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 25 Jan 2023, 20:58
by tomuk
RunningStrong wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 16:47
Why can't a turntable mortar have an autoloader?
Do you know any one who currently makes or fields a autoloading turntable mortar?
RunningStrong wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 16:47
Why can't a turntable mortar have an autoloader?
Do you know any one who currently makes or fields a autoloading turntable mortar?
To the best of my knowledge there appears to be an air-gap between the magazine and the mortar in the latest systems offering semi-automatic loading at best.
Any clue why there's no complete mortar autoloader solution?
RunningStrong wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 22:05
To the best of my knowledge there appears to be an air-gap between the magazine and the mortar in the latest systems offering semi-automatic loading at best.
Any clue why there's no complete mortar autoloader solution?
To be fully automated turntable solution it would require automated acquisition of the next round. For that it would either need to rotate into loading position after every shot, if magazine is not attached to the base, or to have magazine attached to the base. But then it would just make complete system huge, complex and heavy and providing enough space in the back of the vehicle to achieve 360 degree rotation would be challenging.
It could maybe have smaller magazine with 5 to 10 rounds, something similar to Vasilek, but then it would require someone to again load that magazine and loading next 5 to 10 round would require some time. And it would still probably take a lot of space in the back of the vehicle.
It does not. While loading round to the barrel is automated, it still require human to put that round into system for loading.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 26 Jan 2023, 07:29
by RunningStrong
sol wrote: ↑25 Jan 2023, 23:33
To be fully automated turntable solution it would require automated acquisition of the next round. For that it would either need to rotate into loading position after every shot, if magazine is not attached to the base, or to have magazine attached to the base. But then it would just make complete system huge, complex and heavy and providing enough space in the back of the vehicle to achieve 360 degree rotation would be challenging.
I agree, but is that any different to a turreted solution?
Checking NEMO and AMOS also appear to have only a semi-autoloader.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 26 Jan 2023, 08:44
by sol
RunningStrong wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 07:29
I agree, but is that any different to a turreted solution?
Checking NEMO and AMOS also appear to have only a semi-autoloader.
Yes, both are semi-loaded as, if I am not wrong, are all turreted mortars current in service. There was one proposal for US Army of fully automated turret system, in early 2000s but I just can't find it now. I guess, if anyone tried to created a fully automated turntable mortar system it would look something like Boxer RCH155, with huge turret in the back which would be unmanned and which would hold mortar system and all ammo. Or at least that is how I see it. I doubt it would be feasible to implement it as classic mortar carrier with roof-opening.
Also I think it is easier to achieve it with 81/82mm mortars. Vasilek could be fed from 4 rounds clip, I think, and could be loaded from either muzzle or breach. But it can fire automatic only if breach loaded. Another automatic mortar is US ADIM, 81mm automatic mortar which has 20 rounds magazine, and looks very interesting.
But I would not consider either of them a turntable as they look more like small howitzer to me. Something similar could by tried for 120mm but I guess it would be much bigger and heavier, so not sure if it would be practical or economic.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 26 Jan 2023, 16:06
by Ron5
I'm obviously too dumb for all of this (pause for smart answer).
I can't figure out why the UK would want to develop a unique turntable mortar solution for its Boxer fleet when there's existing turret products available virtually off the shelf that fit a requirement for having low protected crew, 360 degree firing, direct fire (and yes, the US Army specifically wanted that) & MRSI. Esp as the BA need seems rather urgent.
But hey ho, let's have a long discussion of the hypothetical merits of hypothetical mortars.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 26 Jan 2023, 16:13
by inch
Hey Ron5 ,not read or understanding UK mod requirement but just reading your not understanding mod , you've got to remember the UK/mod love of changing something already near enough capability and spending shit loads gold plating a niche turd ,just saying lol
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 26 Jan 2023, 16:28
by Ron5
inch wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:13
Hey Ron5 ,not read or understanding UK mod requirement but just reading your not understanding mod , you've got to remember the UK/mod love of changing something already near enough capability and spending shit loads gold plating a niche turd ,just saying lol
Said I was dumb didn't I
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 27 Jan 2023, 13:19
by sol
One more advantage of the breach loaded turret systems is barrel length. US standard M120 mortar, which is also used as mounted on Stryker and M-113, has barrel length of 1.726m. Compare that to NEMO or Polish RAK 120 have 3m barrel, so both are providing more range.
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 27 Jan 2023, 16:22
by Ron5
Fire on the move is pretty neat too:
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 27 Jan 2023, 21:27
by RunningStrong
Ron5 wrote: ↑26 Jan 2023, 16:06
But hey ho, let's have a long discussion of the hypothetical merits of hypothetical mortars.
Discussions on a web forum!? How dare we, how bloody dare we. Perhaps you should stick to editing Wikipedia with your immense "knowledge".
Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)
Posted: 28 Jan 2023, 10:40
by Tempest414
I think for me I would like to see something like NEMO on the Boxers in the ABCT's and Elbit Spear 120mm in the Light Mech BCT's
